First, here's the link to Koenraad Elst's essay, on which what I say is based: Atheism in Indian philosophy: http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2013/10/atheism-in-indian-philosophy.html
A very interesting read, as usual from Koenraad Elst... I get such intriguing glimpses into the culture and philosophical thoughts into which I have been born, from him, because I have been uprooted from their source because of the "secular" educational system I've been thrust into, willy-nilly. But, this is not what I want to discuss. My mind was drawn again to the sexual objectification of "woman", which I rebel against.
In the Samkhya para, and the Samkhya simile quoted therein from the Svetasvatara Upanishad. Nature is depicted as a woman, while Units of Consciousness depicted as men who have "taken their pleasure with her". My heart, mind, consciousness recoil and revolt at such heartless, mindless narratives of my gender.. at this completely strange and bizarre male-centric view of Nature (Female) and Consciousness (Male)...the demeaning sexual objectification of woman or Nature and the glorification of man or Units of Consciousness.
First of all, why give "nature" and "consciousness" any gender, symbolic though it may be? Second, why is it always implied that the male takes his pleasure of the female, as if the female is devoid of any sense of pleasure or sensuality and does not take her pleasure of the male? There is zero mention anywhere I come across such concepts from our religious texts of what the female feels, or her psyche, especially in sexually oriented depictions or symbolisms. Nature, or Woman, is made out to be some sort of passive creature who is taken/had pleasure of by some male symbolism, here, Units of Consciousness. Third, if gender must be attributed to such concepts, why is it never the other way round - why can't Nature be a man and Consciousness be a woman, and therein, why can't the Units of woman-Consciousness take their pleasure of the Man-Nature, and when having had enough of the pleasure, seek their liberation by seeking separation?
I know how traditional Hindus will respond to this; they will snigger at my "modern feminism" and tell me paternalistically that such modern concepts cannot be applied to ancient texts. My point is, it is indeed important to throw light on such male-centric concepts that are accepted blindly, unquestioningly, and it must be done, can only be done, through modern insights and sensibilities.
Another aspect of Hindu thought I have trouble with are the notions of "reincarnation" and "karma" and their relation to each other. I find the concept of our "karma" in this life being determined by something we did in a past life quite simplistic. Basically it smacks of the same simplistic "you, or your soul, will be damned to existence in hell after you die if you do not behave goodly while you are alive here and now" of Christianity. the only difference between Hindu and Christian thought being, that in Hinduism, one has a chance at redemption by being good in a later birth, or reincarnation, whereas in Christianity, you are damned forever. But the attempt at forcing people to be good by instilling fear into them is the same in both systems, it seems to me. And I reject that. Instead, I am inclined towards Immanuel Kant's notion of "doing the good for its own sake, and virtue being its own reward" and therefore doing evil being repugnant because of its own sake - I wonder if this concept exists in Himnduism; I'm pretty sure it must. And as for our condition in this life, and why there is suffering and evil, I haven't figured out yet the causes of it...
But, I do like the more subtle version of karma and reincarnation, which are determined by desire, wherein no simplistic attributes of good and evil are given to it... I must quote the full para here, since I find it so interesting and meaningful: "However, there exists a more subtle version of the karma doctrine. When we die, the motive force that spurs us on to return to this world in a new body is desire. Our deeds and experiences have shaped a pattern of non-satisfaction due to preference and aversion, and this leads to seeking new chances to satisfy these. Therefore, if the desire is quelled, and neutrality takes the place of preferences and aversion, there is no motive force anymore that drives you to a new birth. That is how desire leads to rebirth, while the cessation of desire leads to liberation or nirvāṇa (“blowing out”). But outside the circle of ascetics, this more subtle version of the karma doctrine is little known. Note that this version is “beyond good and evil”."
The problem of why suffering and evil exist, however, still has no answers. And for that matter, why well-being and good exist - though I'm inclined to think that we are inherently good.
P.S. - After reading Koenraad Elst's wonderful essay, as I usually do when I find anything interesting, I went to the "comments" section, where I often find many illuminating thoughts on the subject discussed by the author, and I wasn't disappointed in this one too, especially the comments of the person who calls himself "American".. Most remarkably, I found his "alone" comment so close to the poem "Alone", which I had written much before I came across this essay and the comment.
A very interesting read, as usual from Koenraad Elst... I get such intriguing glimpses into the culture and philosophical thoughts into which I have been born, from him, because I have been uprooted from their source because of the "secular" educational system I've been thrust into, willy-nilly. But, this is not what I want to discuss. My mind was drawn again to the sexual objectification of "woman", which I rebel against.
In the Samkhya para, and the Samkhya simile quoted therein from the Svetasvatara Upanishad. Nature is depicted as a woman, while Units of Consciousness depicted as men who have "taken their pleasure with her". My heart, mind, consciousness recoil and revolt at such heartless, mindless narratives of my gender.. at this completely strange and bizarre male-centric view of Nature (Female) and Consciousness (Male)...the demeaning sexual objectification of woman or Nature and the glorification of man or Units of Consciousness.
First of all, why give "nature" and "consciousness" any gender, symbolic though it may be? Second, why is it always implied that the male takes his pleasure of the female, as if the female is devoid of any sense of pleasure or sensuality and does not take her pleasure of the male? There is zero mention anywhere I come across such concepts from our religious texts of what the female feels, or her psyche, especially in sexually oriented depictions or symbolisms. Nature, or Woman, is made out to be some sort of passive creature who is taken/had pleasure of by some male symbolism, here, Units of Consciousness. Third, if gender must be attributed to such concepts, why is it never the other way round - why can't Nature be a man and Consciousness be a woman, and therein, why can't the Units of woman-Consciousness take their pleasure of the Man-Nature, and when having had enough of the pleasure, seek their liberation by seeking separation?
I know how traditional Hindus will respond to this; they will snigger at my "modern feminism" and tell me paternalistically that such modern concepts cannot be applied to ancient texts. My point is, it is indeed important to throw light on such male-centric concepts that are accepted blindly, unquestioningly, and it must be done, can only be done, through modern insights and sensibilities.
Another aspect of Hindu thought I have trouble with are the notions of "reincarnation" and "karma" and their relation to each other. I find the concept of our "karma" in this life being determined by something we did in a past life quite simplistic. Basically it smacks of the same simplistic "you, or your soul, will be damned to existence in hell after you die if you do not behave goodly while you are alive here and now" of Christianity. the only difference between Hindu and Christian thought being, that in Hinduism, one has a chance at redemption by being good in a later birth, or reincarnation, whereas in Christianity, you are damned forever. But the attempt at forcing people to be good by instilling fear into them is the same in both systems, it seems to me. And I reject that. Instead, I am inclined towards Immanuel Kant's notion of "doing the good for its own sake, and virtue being its own reward" and therefore doing evil being repugnant because of its own sake - I wonder if this concept exists in Himnduism; I'm pretty sure it must. And as for our condition in this life, and why there is suffering and evil, I haven't figured out yet the causes of it...
But, I do like the more subtle version of karma and reincarnation, which are determined by desire, wherein no simplistic attributes of good and evil are given to it... I must quote the full para here, since I find it so interesting and meaningful: "However, there exists a more subtle version of the karma doctrine. When we die, the motive force that spurs us on to return to this world in a new body is desire. Our deeds and experiences have shaped a pattern of non-satisfaction due to preference and aversion, and this leads to seeking new chances to satisfy these. Therefore, if the desire is quelled, and neutrality takes the place of preferences and aversion, there is no motive force anymore that drives you to a new birth. That is how desire leads to rebirth, while the cessation of desire leads to liberation or nirvāṇa (“blowing out”). But outside the circle of ascetics, this more subtle version of the karma doctrine is little known. Note that this version is “beyond good and evil”."
The problem of why suffering and evil exist, however, still has no answers. And for that matter, why well-being and good exist - though I'm inclined to think that we are inherently good.
P.S. - After reading Koenraad Elst's wonderful essay, as I usually do when I find anything interesting, I went to the "comments" section, where I often find many illuminating thoughts on the subject discussed by the author, and I wasn't disappointed in this one too, especially the comments of the person who calls himself "American".. Most remarkably, I found his "alone" comment so close to the poem "Alone", which I had written much before I came across this essay and the comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment